5 ms·

> our democracy isn't working properly Democracy doesn't work through public declarations, it works through elections. One year ago, the states chose Donald Tr

> our democracy isn't working properly Democracy doesn't work through public declarations, it works through elections. One year ago, the states chose Donald Trump as president, knowing they he would end Net Neutrality [1]. If a population wants to send a different message, they must do it in the next election [2]. [1] https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/532608358508167168 https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/53260835850816716... [2] https://swingleft.org/ https://swingleft.org/

scrollaway 9y ago
You're just saying your democracy isn't working properly, just for different reasons. Most Trump supporters did not elect trump "knowing ... he would end Net Neutrality", and a statement from 2014 does not disprove that (a cursory glance at r/TrumpCriticizesTrump/ kinda makes the point). The US public is atrociously misinformed as a whole, either due to lack of education or bad media incentives or both. In order to function, a democracy requires an informed public.
- dfee 9y ago
  Thankfully we don’t live in a democracy. America is a democratic republic. As the public is naturally under-informed, this is arguably a good thing; regardless of your views on Net Neutrality. E.g. has Trump been able to build the wall that arguably half the population approved of? No, because his budget approval process has been checked by other elected representatives.
olympus 9y ago
Having a good memory is the singularly best way to combat the money corrupting politics. The people just proved with the Alabama special election that they can change the establishment if they feel strongly enough about it. Sadly I think the effects of repealing Net Neutrality will be felt more like a frog in a slowly heating pot of water, and no single change is going to entice the majority of the population to vote. It's not the tech industry that needs to be convinced that repealing neutrality is bad, it's the general non-tech population that needs to be convinced to care.
- ryandrake 9y ago
  Alabama didn't prove anything really. It demonstrated that the bar for getting elected to a national office in Alabama is a minuscule amount above "accused of sexually assaulting minors".
  - olympus 9y ago
    It also demonstrated that the established incumbent party can lose if they ignore the will of the people. They could have easily found another Republican (even another judge) that wasn't accused of numerous sexual misconducts. They chose not to bother because why swap out a yes-man with a person that might have principles when Alabama is a guaranteed win? Eventually both parties are going to realize that they would be better off putting forward a candidate that the people like instead of putting forth an establishment yes-man (in the Dems case from the presidential race, a yes-woman).
ryanisnan 9y ago
Our democracy is hardly a democracy. I kind of wish people would stop discussing it as such. The opinion of the population matters very little to the outcome of legislation, and for those whose opinions it does matter (legislators), they are bought and paid for. Also, if you really think that people who voted for Donald Trump understood the intricacies of net neutrality you must be an incredibly optimistic individual.
tmat 9y ago
the problem with this statement is we weren't given a fair choice of options.. It was this or that and they both stunk to high heaven.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  Absolutely. The strongest point of each candidate was that they weren't the other candidate.
  - sergiotapia 9y ago
    I'm sure President Trump's policies were very important for voters, not just "he's not hillary".
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      I think his very-well-known inconsistencies on policy matters makes it hard to argue that he won on the merits of his policies. His personality, attitude, and his not being Hillary Clinton seemed to be more important.
  - tmat 9y ago
    Amazing isn't it?
Cknight70 9y ago
While I do not think Donald Trump is turning out to be a great president, his competition was not any better for different reasons. I think there is also a problem with how our Democracy elects people as well.
- nawgszy 9y ago
  I don't like Hillary at all and think the Democrats would've easily won if they hadn't used establishment tactics to put thru their establishment candidate over Bernie, but.. >his competition was not any better Really? Hillary was going to carry on a lot of Obam-ian policies. Net neutrality would still exist, pedophiles would not be publicly endorsed by her, and a 'tax cut' that is actually just a confusing mess that only clearly benefits the super-rich would not have happened. So what exactly would she have done to be as bad as Trump? The guy is incessantly mired in scandals; says things that a centrist family would barely tolerate their old, crazy, racist uncle saying around holiday dinners; and is basically a narcissist. I don't like Hillary at all and don't see how you can say "she's not any better than Trump" with a straight face.
  - chronic193 9y ago
    > Hillary was going to carry on a lot of Obam-ian policies. This is precisely why she did not win.
  - Cknight70 9y ago
    Probably because of political leaning, but statements Trump made like wanting to incentivize companies to return to the US, deporting illegal immigrants, and decreasing military spending. Were some of the main reasons I thought Trump was even worthy of being considered. Trump has been wishy washy on his immigration and military spending statements since being in office.
- jamescontrol 9y ago
  I an pretty far away from you guys, but from where I’m sitting trump seems like a utter maniac, lying even when people can clearly prove it is lies. Alternative facts etc etc. I have a hard time understanding how he can be compared to pretty much anyone and come out on top.. I know the Media paints their own picture of him, but still?
humanrebar 9y ago
> One year ago, the states chose Donald Trump as president, knowing they he would end Net Neutrality More charitably, they chose Donald Trump on the suspicion that he would do "better" than Hillary Clinton on: abortion, immigration, the economy, leading in "the culture wars", and maybe a few other issues. Net neutrality was a litmus test for basically nobody.
- unityByFreedom 9y ago
  > Net neutrality was a litmus test for basically nobody At that time, sure. Time will tell whether electing an extremist candidate was a good idea or not. Losing in deep red Alabama isn't a good sign.
  - dfee 9y ago
    I think you’re looking for the term populist, not extremist.
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      Agreed. "extremist" implies some sort of ideology. If Trump has one of those, he hasn't articulated it yet.
      - unityByFreedom 9y ago
        > Agreed. "extremist" implies some sort of ideology. If Trump has one of those, he hasn't articulated it yet. Are you serious? Every politician is an ideologue. It's why we elect one over another. We agree with one's idea about policies over another's. The only people who we expect to divorce themselves from ideologies are judges, who are there to interpret the law, not make it.
        humanrebar 9y ago
        I'm not sure the electorate sees elections the same way. I think most of them are true Republicans in the sense that they want to elect people they think are trustworthy and then let them make decisions as their proxy. In that case, a candidate can have policies and platforms to convince people to let her be their proxy, but she doesn't need them. She could just have a "trust me, I'll make the right decision" pitch. Besides, if Trump is an ideologue, what is that ideology? At best it's a new (or at least renewed) nativist spin on identity politics. That's not an ideology; that's a team.
mrguyorama 9y ago
>the states chose Donald Trump as president The states, yet not the people Sure, he won with our current system, but even school children think our current system is silly

scrollaway 9y ago

You're just saying your democracy isn't working properly, just for different reasons. Most Trump supporters did not elect trump "knowing ... he would end Net Neutrality", and a statement from 2014 does not disprove that (a cursory glance at r/TrumpCriticizesTrump/ kinda makes the point). The US public is atrociously misinformed as a whole, either due to lack of education or bad media incentives or both. In order to function, a democracy requires an informed public.

dfee 9y ago
Thankfully we don’t live in a democracy. America is a democratic republic. As the public is naturally under-informed, this is arguably a good thing; regardless of your views on Net Neutrality. E.g. has Trump been able to build the wall that arguably half the population approved of? No, because his budget approval process has been checked by other elected representatives.

olympus 9y ago

Having a good memory is the singularly best way to combat the money corrupting politics. The people just proved with the Alabama special election that they can change the establishment if they feel strongly enough about it. Sadly I think the effects of repealing Net Neutrality will be felt more like a frog in a slowly heating pot of water, and no single change is going to entice the majority of the population to vote. It's not the tech industry that needs to be convinced that repealing neutrality is bad, it's the general non-tech population that needs to be convinced to care.

ryandrake 9y ago
Alabama didn't prove anything really. It demonstrated that the bar for getting elected to a national office in Alabama is a minuscule amount above "accused of sexually assaulting minors".
- olympus 9y ago
  It also demonstrated that the established incumbent party can lose if they ignore the will of the people. They could have easily found another Republican (even another judge) that wasn't accused of numerous sexual misconducts. They chose not to bother because why swap out a yes-man with a person that might have principles when Alabama is a guaranteed win? Eventually both parties are going to realize that they would be better off putting forward a candidate that the people like instead of putting forth an establishment yes-man (in the Dems case from the presidential race, a yes-woman).

ryanisnan 9y ago

Our democracy is hardly a democracy. I kind of wish people would stop discussing it as such. The opinion of the population matters very little to the outcome of legislation, and for those whose opinions it does matter (legislators), they are bought and paid for. Also, if you really think that people who voted for Donald Trump understood the intricacies of net neutrality you must be an incredibly optimistic individual.

tmat 9y ago

the problem with this statement is we weren't given a fair choice of options.. It was this or that and they both stunk to high heaven.

humanrebar 9y ago
Absolutely. The strongest point of each candidate was that they weren't the other candidate.
- sergiotapia 9y ago
  I'm sure President Trump's policies were very important for voters, not just "he's not hillary".
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    I think his very-well-known inconsistencies on policy matters makes it hard to argue that he won on the merits of his policies. His personality, attitude, and his not being Hillary Clinton seemed to be more important.
- tmat 9y ago
  Amazing isn't it?

Cknight70 9y ago

While I do not think Donald Trump is turning out to be a great president, his competition was not any better for different reasons. I think there is also a problem with how our Democracy elects people as well.

nawgszy 9y ago
I don't like Hillary at all and think the Democrats would've easily won if they hadn't used establishment tactics to put thru their establishment candidate over Bernie, but.. >his competition was not any better Really? Hillary was going to carry on a lot of Obam-ian policies. Net neutrality would still exist, pedophiles would not be publicly endorsed by her, and a 'tax cut' that is actually just a confusing mess that only clearly benefits the super-rich would not have happened. So what exactly would she have done to be as bad as Trump? The guy is incessantly mired in scandals; says things that a centrist family would barely tolerate their old, crazy, racist uncle saying around holiday dinners; and is basically a narcissist. I don't like Hillary at all and don't see how you can say "she's not any better than Trump" with a straight face.
- chronic193 9y ago
  > Hillary was going to carry on a lot of Obam-ian policies. This is precisely why she did not win.
- Cknight70 9y ago
  Probably because of political leaning, but statements Trump made like wanting to incentivize companies to return to the US, deporting illegal immigrants, and decreasing military spending. Were some of the main reasons I thought Trump was even worthy of being considered. Trump has been wishy washy on his immigration and military spending statements since being in office.
jamescontrol 9y ago
I an pretty far away from you guys, but from where I’m sitting trump seems like a utter maniac, lying even when people can clearly prove it is lies. Alternative facts etc etc. I have a hard time understanding how he can be compared to pretty much anyone and come out on top.. I know the Media paints their own picture of him, but still?

humanrebar 9y ago

> One year ago, the states chose Donald Trump as president, knowing they he would end Net Neutrality More charitably, they chose Donald Trump on the suspicion that he would do "better" than Hillary Clinton on: abortion, immigration, the economy, leading in "the culture wars", and maybe a few other issues. Net neutrality was a litmus test for basically nobody.

unityByFreedom 9y ago
> Net neutrality was a litmus test for basically nobody At that time, sure. Time will tell whether electing an extremist candidate was a good idea or not. Losing in deep red Alabama isn't a good sign.
- dfee 9y ago
  I think you’re looking for the term populist, not extremist.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    Agreed. "extremist" implies some sort of ideology. If Trump has one of those, he hasn't articulated it yet.
    - unityByFreedom 9y ago
      > Agreed. "extremist" implies some sort of ideology. If Trump has one of those, he hasn't articulated it yet. Are you serious? Every politician is an ideologue. It's why we elect one over another. We agree with one's idea about policies over another's. The only people who we expect to divorce themselves from ideologies are judges, who are there to interpret the law, not make it.
      - humanrebar 9y ago
        I'm not sure the electorate sees elections the same way. I think most of them are true Republicans in the sense that they want to elect people they think are trustworthy and then let them make decisions as their proxy. In that case, a candidate can have policies and platforms to convince people to let her be their proxy, but she doesn't need them. She could just have a "trust me, I'll make the right decision" pitch. Besides, if Trump is an ideologue, what is that ideology? At best it's a new (or at least renewed) nativist spin on identity politics. That's not an ideology; that's a team.

mrguyorama 9y ago

>the states chose Donald Trump as president The states, yet not the people Sure, he won with our current system, but even school children think our current system is silly